Supremes Say Corporate Rights Trumps Women's Rights

In a 5 to 4 vote, the conservatives on the Supreme Court have made a decision that should shame all Americans. They have decided that the religious rights of a corporation are more important than the rights of women who work for that corporation. They ruled that corporations like Hobby Lobby have the right to make sure the insurance they provide for employees doesn't contain anything that would offend the religious beliefs of the corporation's owners -- in this case many kinds of contraception, such as IUD's, the morning after pill, and some types of birth control pills.

The crazy part of this is that the corporation did not have to pay even a penny for that coverage of contraceptives. The insurance companies had taken that expense on themselves (since contraceptive coverage saved them money). But even though they didn't have to pay for that coverage (since their insurance would cost the same with or without contraceptive coverage), the company decided their religious views were offended and demanded that the insurance they provided for employees should not cover contraceptives for women.

I was not really surprised by this decision by the court's right-wingers. The right-wing in America seems determined to keep women as second-class citizens. They deny women the right to control their own bodies, to be paid equally for equal work, and now the right to have contraception covered by their employer-provided health insurance policy. The sad fact is that these same companies who deny contraception coverage are also the companies that pay poverty wages -- so that at least some women will be unable to pay for their own contraception.

The only good thing about this decision is that it doesn't seem to apply to publicly-owned corporations (but only to companies owned by an individual, a family, or a small group). And Hobby Lobby does say there are some forms of contraception they approve of (sponges, some types of pills, etc.) -- but there is nothing in this ruling that would keep them from deciding in the future that no form of contraception meets with their religious approval (or that could be decided by some other company).

This decision also puts health care rights on a slippery slope. If these companies can deny contraception in their policies, can other companies deny other health benefits based on religious beliefs -- like blood transfusions (or in the case of a company owned by a Christian Scientist, any kind of medical care other than prayer)?

This was a very bad court decision, and like the Citizens United decision, needs to be overturned. Courts have made bad decisions in the past (like the infamous Dred Scott decision) that was overturned by a better court. Hopefully this will happen.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the minority opinion. Here are some excerpts from her opinion:

"The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would...deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage."

"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."

"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

"Would the exemption...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]...Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision."

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."